R v Jeffrey and Daley - [2002] QCA 429

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jeffrey & Daley [2002] QCA 429

PARTIES:

R
v
JEFFREY, Deborah Marie
(appellant)
DALEY, David Charles King
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 140 of 2002
CA No 150 of 2002
DC No 1149 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 September 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA, and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeals by David Charles King Daley and Deborah Marie Jeffrey against their convictions for robbery with personal violence and robbery respectively allowed, and each conviction quashed and a retrial ordered on the charges of robbery and robbery with personal violence on which the respective appellants had originally been convicted
2. Application by Deborah Marie Jeffrey for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on her for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm dismissed
3. The appellant Daley be remanded in custody until further order

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – ROBBERY – GENERALLY – where appellant Daley claimed he was entitled to money possessed by the complainant as of a right in the appellant Jeffrey to compensation – where appellants acted together in taking money from complainant – where appellant Jeffrey convicted only by reason of her being a party to the robbery committed by appellant Daley – operation of s 22 of the Criminal Code – whether appellant Daley had an honest claim of right to the money

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where learned trial judge declined to direct the jury on defence under s 22 of the Criminal Code – where learned judge ruled that because the evidence of appellant Daley was that he did not take the money but was given it by the complainant, the s 22 defence could not apply – where appellant Daley was not cross examined as to the basis or honesty of his claimed belief – whether lack of direction to jury on s 22 defence deprived appellant Daley of the chance of an acquittal

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant Jeffrey acted from sense of grievance – where applicant disavowed a claim of right – where applicant committed assault occasioning bodily harm in complainants’ home – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 8, s 22, s 24, s 668E

Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414, followed
Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, considered
Mitchell v Norman; ex parte Norman [1965] Qd R 587, followed
R v Barlow (1996-7) 188 CLR 1, considered
R v P [2002] 2 Qd…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Jeffrey and Daley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] QCA 429
Decision Date: 18 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jeffrey and Daley involved an appeal by the appellants against their convictions for robbery and a related application by one of the appellants for leave to appeal against a sentence. The appellants, Deborah Marie Jeffrey and David Charles King Daley, were originally convicted of robbery with personal violence and robbery respectively. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the money taken from the complainant, with Daley claiming a right to compensation and Jeffrey disavowing any such claim. The case turned on whether Daley had an honest claim of right to the money and whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury on the defence of an honest claim of right under section 22 of the Criminal Code. Additionally, Jeffrey sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on her for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The court had to decide whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the section 22 defence did not apply because Daley did not take the money but was given it by the complainant. The court also had to determine whether the failure to direct the jury on the section 22 defence deprived Daley of a chance of acquittal. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the sentence imposed on Jeffrey was manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the offence and her actions being driven by a sense of grievance.

The court found that the trial judge erred in ruling that the section 22 defence did not apply and in not directing the jury on this defence. The judge had not assessed the honesty of Daley’s claim of right, nor had Daley been cross-examined on this point. This omission deprived Daley of a chance of acquittal. The court also found that Jeffrey's actions, though driven by a sense of grievance, did not warrant a manifestly excessive sentence. However, the court determined that the error in the trial proceedings warranted a retrial for both appellants on the charges of robbery and robbery with personal violence. Jeffrey's application for leave to appeal against her sentence was dismissed as the sentence was not found to be manifestly excessive.

The court ordered that the appeals by the appellants against their convictions be allowed, and each conviction quashed with a retrial ordered on the charges of robbery and robbery with personal violence. Deborah Marie Jeffrey's application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on her was dismissed. David Charles King Daley was to be remanded in custody until further order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeals by David Charles King Daley and Deborah Marie Jeffrey against their convictions for robbery with personal violence and robbery respectively allowed, and each conviction quashed and a retrial ordered on the charges of robbery and robbery with personal violence on which the respective appellants had originally been convicted

2. Application by Deborah Marie Jeffrey for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on her for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm dismissed

3. The appellant Daley be remanded in custody until further order

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Jeffrey & Daley [2002] QCA 429
PARTIES:	R v JEFFREY, Deborah Marie (appellant) DALEY, David Charles King (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 140 of 2002 CA No 150 of 2002 DC No 1149 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 September 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA, and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeals by David Charles King Daley and Deborah Marie Jeffrey against their convictions for robbery with personal violence and robbery respectively allowed, and each conviction quashed and a retrial ordered on the charges of robbery and robbery with personal violence on which the respective appellants had originally been convicted 2. Application by Deborah Marie Jeffrey for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on her for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm dismissed 3. The appellant Daley be remanded in custody until further order
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – ROBBERY – GENERALLY – where appellant Daley claimed he was entitled to money possessed by the complainant as of a right in the appellant Jeffrey to compensation – where appellants acted together in taking money from complainant – where appellant Jeffrey convicted only by reason of her being a party to the robbery committed by appellant Daley – operation of s 22 of the Criminal Code – whether appellant Daley had an honest claim of right to the money CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where learned trial judge declined to direct the jury on defence under s 22 of the Criminal Code – where learned judge ruled that because the evidence of appellant Daley was that he did not take the money but was given it by the complainant, the s 22 defence could not apply – where appellant Daley was not cross examined as to the basis or honesty of his claimed belief – whether lack of direction to jury on s 22 defence deprived appellant Daley of the chance of an acquittal CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant Jeffrey acted from sense of grievance – where applicant disavowed a claim of right – where applicant committed assault occasioning bodily harm in complainants’ home – whether sentence manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 8, s 22, s 24, s 668E Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414, followed Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, considered Mitchell v Norman; ex parte Norman [1965] Qd R 587, followed R v Barlow (1996-7) 188 CLR 1, considered R v P [2002] 2 Qd…